The phrase “fog of war” has been cropping up in the media with increasing frequency in the past few months. Coined by the Prussian military strategist Karl von Clausewitz, it’s meant to describe the confusion of the battlefield and the difficulty commanders face making coherent decisions in chaotic conditions.
The forecast calls for continued fog of war and no town seems more socked in than Washington, DC. Dick Cheney’s back in town, after an 11-nation tour of the mid-east, where he was able to drum up exactly zero support for military action against Iraq. Thank goodness the administration strutted and boasted and thumped its chest first, and then went out and tried to put together a coalition. Saddam sits back and grins as yet another member of the Bush family fails to remove him from power.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says Operation Anaconda was an unqualified success and US forces are presiding over an essentially pacified Afghanistan. Nothing to worry about. A few days later, CIA Director George Tenet goes to Capitol Hill and tells Congress to expect guerilla attacks against US forces in Afghanistan as soon as the weather begins to warm. I know we supposedly shut down the official office of disinformation, but who needs one when the guys in charge publicly contradict each other? What should we believe?
While he was on the hill, Mr. Tenet also testified that the United States is still vulnerable to attacks by terrorists. He noted industrial facilities present particularly tempting targets to would-be evildoers.
Just like his remarks on Afghanistan, Mr. Tenet’s views on industrial vulnerability are directly contradicted by another high-ranking member of the Bush administration, in this case EPA Administrator Christine Whitman. Who should we believe?
Let’s look at recent history. In August, before the terrorist attacks, Greenpeace wrote to Administrator Whitman with concerns about potential industrial accidents in densely populated areas. In October, after the attacks, when awareness should have been higher than ever, Ms. Whitman wrote back to Greenpeace, dismissing the concerns. Kind of a “Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” approach.
In November, EPA officials told the Senate they were meeting with representatives of the chemical industry to enhance security at industrial facilities. That sounds good, but in January, Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher was unable to name a single concrete action taken to protect the chemical industry from attack. She admitted the EPA’s deficit and agreed to work with New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine on legislation to mandate state-of-the-art security for chemical plants. Better late than never, at least the ball was finally rolling.
Or not. On February 26th, Ms. Whitman told an industry trade group that new regulations designed to protect against terrorist attacks are not needed. This is a bureaucratic high point. Don Rumsfeld and George Tenet contradict each other. Christie Whitman needs no outside help; she contradicts herself. But which Christie Whitman should we believe?
Over 120 industrial facilities in this country could each pose a threat to more than one million people in case of accident or attack. The US Army believes an attack on certain single facilities could result in more than two million deaths. Department of Transportation studies reveal hundreds of thousands of shipments of hazardous materials all across the country. A railroad accident shut down half of Baltimore for a week last summer. The risks are real – so why doesn’t the EPA act?
Money, that’s why. The Bush administration is willing to clamp down civil liberties at home and play bully boy across the globe, but it will not take even the most reasonable and prudent measures if those measures will displease any corporation which has in the past, or perhaps will in the future, donate campaign cash.
The fog of war obscures Washington more than ever. The next fog in your town might be a cloud of toxic chemicals.
Fog of War
The phrase “fog of war” has been cropping up in the media with increasing frequency in the past few months. Coined by the Prussian military strategist Karl von Clausewitz, it’s meant to describe the confusion of the battlefield and the difficulty commanders face making coherent decisions in chaotic conditions.
The forecast calls for continued fog of war and no town seems more socked in than Washington, DC. Dick Cheney’s back in town, after an 11-nation tour of the mid-east, where he was able to drum up exactly zero support for military action against Iraq. Thank goodness the administration strutted and boasted and thumped its chest first, and then went out and tried to put together a coalition. Saddam sits back and grins as yet another member of the Bush family fails to remove him from power.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says Operation Anaconda was an unqualified success and US forces are presiding over an essentially pacified Afghanistan. Nothing to worry about. A few days later, CIA Director George Tenet goes to Capitol Hill and tells Congress to expect guerilla attacks against US forces in Afghanistan as soon as the weather begins to warm. I know we supposedly shut down the official office of disinformation, but who needs one when the guys in charge publicly contradict each other? What should we believe?
While he was on the hill, Mr. Tenet also testified that the United States is still vulnerable to attacks by terrorists. He noted industrial facilities present particularly tempting targets to would-be evildoers.
Just like his remarks on Afghanistan, Mr. Tenet’s views on industrial vulnerability are directly contradicted by another high-ranking member of the Bush administration, in this case EPA Administrator Christine Whitman. Who should we believe?
Let’s look at recent history. In August, before the terrorist attacks, Greenpeace wrote to Administrator Whitman with concerns about potential industrial accidents in densely populated areas. In October, after the attacks, when awareness should have been higher than ever, Ms. Whitman wrote back to Greenpeace, dismissing the concerns. Kind of a “Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” approach.
In November, EPA officials told the Senate they were meeting with representatives of the chemical industry to enhance security at industrial facilities. That sounds good, but in January, Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher was unable to name a single concrete action taken to protect the chemical industry from attack. She admitted the EPA’s deficit and agreed to work with New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine on legislation to mandate state-of-the-art security for chemical plants. Better late than never, at least the ball was finally rolling.
Or not. On February 26th, Ms. Whitman told an industry trade group that new regulations designed to protect against terrorist attacks are not needed. This is a bureaucratic high point. Don Rumsfeld and George Tenet contradict each other. Christie Whitman needs no outside help; she contradicts herself. But which Christie Whitman should we believe?
Over 120 industrial facilities in this country could each pose a threat to more than one million people in case of accident or attack. The US Army believes an attack on certain single facilities could result in more than two million deaths. Department of Transportation studies reveal hundreds of thousands of shipments of hazardous materials all across the country. A railroad accident shut down half of Baltimore for a week last summer. The risks are real – so why doesn’t the EPA act?
Money, that’s why. The Bush administration is willing to clamp down civil liberties at home and play bully boy across the globe, but it will not take even the most reasonable and prudent measures if those measures will displease any corporation which has in the past, or perhaps will in the future, donate campaign cash.
The fog of war obscures Washington more than ever. The next fog in your town might be a cloud of toxic chemicals.